Thursday, September 19, 2013

FULL
TEXT: [Salt Lake, Utah] – It is now reasonable to believe that George W Wilson,
who was convicted of the crime of attempting to commit rape and sentenced on
Nov 19, 1895 to a term of four years imprisonment, may be innocent of the
charge. His conviction was secured mainly on the testimony of police officers,
who arrested him under suspicious circumstances in their zealous effort to
learn the truth that justice might be meted out the supposed victim of the
alleged assault was frightened into telling a falsehood which formed the basis
of the conviction. Such was the view taken of the case yesterday by the state
board of pardons, in giving Mr. Wilson the benefit of the doubt and granting
him an unconditional pardon.

~
FAVORABLE TO WILSON ~

When
Wilson’s petition for a pardon was first heard last year it resulted in a
denial though his previous untarnished character was amply certified to by
hundreds of prominent persons in California, where the accused formerly lived
before securing employment here as the Walker house. His light sentence was due
to the belief that he was of unsound mind. Judge King before whom he was tried
and Judge Howat, the then prosecuting attorney endorsed his second petition.
Chief Pratt and the police officers who the case against Wilson, joined in his
request for his pardon.

~
STRANGE REVELATIONS ~

The
motive prompting the board of pardons to exercise clemency in Wilson’s behalf
were the affidavits tending to prove that he was not guilty of the offense
charged. Lille Carney, the young girl up on whom the assault was alleged to
have been committed deposed that through fear of the police sending her to jail
as they had threatened to do she finally admitted that Wilson had assaulted her
and testified at the trial when in truth the accused had never laid hands upon
her or violate her person, but on the contrary he had always been kind and
correct in his deportment toward her. She also deposed that she had frequently
related to her mother and to others that she had testified falsely against
Wilson.

The
affidavits of Mrs. Senie Carney, the girl’s mother, and Mrs. E. D. Temple
corroborated the statements made in the deposition of the prosecution.

[Note:
This article continues, but with discussions of separate cases of unrelated
types of crimes. The text reproduced her is the full text of the first of these
cases, the Wilson rape case.]

Monday, September 9, 2013

The article’s
author: Sophie Irene Loeb (July 4, 1876, Rivne, Volhynia, Russia (now
Ukraine) – January 18, 1929; born Sophie
Irene Simon) was a US journalist and social-welfare advocate. She was a
school teacher in McKeesport, Pennsylvania, at the East End Public School
before she married Ansel F. Loeb, in 1896. She was the president of the Board
of Child Welfare of New York for seven years, and in 1921 she established the
first child welfare building. In 1924, she became president of the Child
Welfare Committee of America. [Wikipedia]

The year this article was published, 1926, was a year after
the man I call the first Men’s Rights Activist in the USA, Samuel Reid, began
his nearly four-year long protest and a year before the organization I consider
to be the first formal Men’s Rights organization in the US, the American Alimony Payer’s Protective Association, was established.

The terms “New Woman” and “New Era” were common terms used
in the 1920s to describe feminist conceptualizations of women’s status.

Some readers might find the following 87-year old story to a
an uncannily familiar ring to it – even though there has been such great social
change and progress (so we are told) since 1926!

***

FULL TEXT: Once upon a time there was a
young woman. She lived in the New Era. That is to say, she was permeated with
propaganda, which she not only preached but practiced.

She talked about the “economic independence
of women,” “the slavery of womankind,” man’s long mastery over woman,” etc.,
etc. in a word, she looked with little favor on her father’s sex.

So long had she absorbed the New Era
doctrines that she could not think of anything else. Her chief aversion was
man. Each and every one was a brute in her eyes – a being who “lorded” it over
woman, and altogether a creature to be subdued, to be made to realize that woman
could have none of him if she so desired.

All of these notions she took to heart
early. At school and directly after leaving there she began to carry them out.
That is, she secured a position as a school teacher and earned her own living.

Now, as it happened, this girl was a very
attractive one. She was pretty of face. So many a worth-while youth came to
court and Cupid was “on the jib.” But she would have none of it.

She would let them call for a little while
and be “friends,” but the moment there was any sign of sentiment it was all
off. She would laugh at the youth and send him off, feelingly keenly what a
fool he had been. After a while he would turn his attentions elsewhere.

She would let them call for a little while and be “friends,”
but the moment there was any sign of sentiment it was all off. She would laugh
at the youth and send him off, feeling keenly what a fool he had been. After a
while he would turn his attentions elsewhere.

The view would gather her girl friends about her (other
followers of the cult) and gleefully tell them how silly she had made him
appear and how she had completely disarmed him and his ardor.

Thus it went along for several years, and the girl continued
to be the strong propagandist with ultra-strong feminism as the glowing banner
to live up to. She gave up her public position and, with two of her “devotees,”
went into private business. They opened a general store in a small town, where
they sold everything.

The girl became the dominant spirit, the leader of the concern.
She it was who did all the bullying, who met the men, and, woe unto them! She
put them on the everlasting defensive, approached them with a
beat-me-if-you-dare attitude.

Then the partners would get together and the lady leader
would relate her experience – how he had not been able to “put it over” on her,
and what a splendid bargain she had made.

More and more this woman hugged the belief close to her
breast that man was her enemy, to battle against continually. Each was “out to
get the best of her,” she thought. Further, that the woman who married one of
the creatures was continuously his debtor.

Therefore, the thing to her was never to be indebted to him
in any way. To get enough money so as never to need man was the thing.

Now this might have all been very well, but coupled with it
was the slow but sure shutting him out entirely as well as all sentiment, all
romance, all love.

Money was the monitor of all this woman surveyed. She
labored for years and got her goal-money. Now she had leisure, and being
“independent” she could choose to love whomever she pleased.

She would look about. She would find a mate for the
remaining years and marry him instead of his marrying her. she would be boss,
for hadn’t she done the earning? Didn’t she deserve it?

But, alas! The woman was no longer attractive. Her hair was
gray and there were wrinkles in her face. Though her energy was still strong,
she had grown hard and cynical, and Cupid could not come near, he was that
unhappy around her.

Many a time she watched the youths that were, each with a
happy wife and delightful children.

Many a time she looked at a happy wife and mother and thus
saw herself ride by – as she might have been.

True, in her search for a mate she found one or two, but her
illusions having she fled she realized that they wanted only their money.

Now she was very lonely. She had shut love out for she had
always found only fault with those who might have been lovers. She found that
after all she had not been able to reform the world and man had not even
herself. For she was only human and needed the human element of love that goes
with it.

At last she understood she had missed, even though that
something was imperfect. She died leaving her wealth to heirs who had dubbed
her “the New Era manhater.”

Moral:

Love, no matter how imperfect, is needed by the best of
regulated feminists.

Sunday, September 8, 2013

FULL TEXT: New York – And now there’s a new
topic of debate about women’s liberation that’s bound to make at least one-half
of the population a bit uneasy – man-hating.

While more than 200 women cheered several
speakers gave their personal views on why hating men was an essential subject
related to women’s equality. The conference, closed to men, was organized by
the Feminists of New York, who had a similar speak-out on rape several years
ago.

“We have a moral cause for hating men for
they have taken away all our power,” said Barbara Mirnoffof the Feminists, by way of introduction.
“Men have imposed their minds and bodies on women and our hatred is a natural response,
a rational and political hatred developing from centuries of male rule.”

The women in the audience, mostly young,
dressed in jeans and T-shirts, knitting, taking notes, or holding hands, had
paid up to $2 to hear speakers like Robin Morgan, editor of an anthology of
feminist writings, “Sisterhood is Powerful.”

She read some of her favorite man-hating
poems from her new book, “The Monster.”

“I want a woman’s revolution like a lover. I
lust for it. How I wish that my tears were bullets to kill what terrorizes in
men.”

Janet Bajan, a member of the New York Radical
Feminists, drew applause when she said that man hatred was “a protective
reaction, a survival mechanism to change the situation in favor of women.”

Pat Mainardi, married, the author of “The
Politics of Housework,” and the editor of the Feminist Art Journal, said,
“Man-hating marks a turning point in the movement. We have been defensive long
enough.”

“People often ask me how women can be
man-haters,” she added. “And I wonder, hoe can we be anything else.” The women
cheered.

“We sleep with the enemy to find out his
secrets and we pass them on to our allies,” she said, but the audience hissed.

“The only way to win liberation is to make
men miserable so they will have no peace until women are free. Married women
invented man-hating,” she declared.

One member of the Radical Lesbians claimed
that the Lesbians were the original man-haters. But Jill Johnston, a Lesbian
who writes for the Village Voice weekly newspaper, said that Lesbians were
women lovers, not necessarily man haters. “I don’t really want to waste my
energy on encountering men and hating them,” she said, though she expressed
some admiration for a Lesbian friend who had physically assaulted men on the
street.

The conference almost came to a standstill
when one speaker announced, “All you Lesbians out there – in 10 years you’ll be
married to some man.”

Saturday, September 7, 2013

February 14, 1971:
Today’s contribution to Picture Magazine’s series by famous American writers is
by Ellery Queen, master of mystery, who is, as all mystery fans know, two
persons — Frederic Dannay
and Manfred B. Lee, cousins. In this article they discuss some of the more extreme
adherents of Women’s Liberation.

***

By Ellery Queen

FULL TEXT: On MAY 2, 1956, a 300-pound New
Orleans car salesman named Max Jernigan had the bad luck to run into—or more
accurately to be run into by — an early rebel against the dominant male,
Beatrice P. Adams, an attractive 33-year-old stenographer. A fellow car
salesman was the astonished witness to Miss Adams’s vigorous act of rebellion,
and he told fascinated reporters about it.

“God knows how many times she ran over
Jernigan. She would hit him, back down the drive into the street, and get
another running start. Then she would take off up the drive, swerve over to the
body, and hit it again. I mean run over it. There were tire marks all over the
drive, the street, the sidewalk and the ground. I’m telling you, that was the
most cold-blooded exhibition I’ve ever seen.”

•
“Just pray to God,

She
will provide”

It appears that Beatrice P. Adams was
expressing her resentment against male chauvinism in the only way she felt lay
open to her. “I feel no remorse over having killed him,’’ Miss Adams is
reported to have said. “I’d do it again. God and I are tired of men taking
advantage of women.”

Note the partnership. It required only one
further step to reach what some leaders of Women’s Lib are proclaiming today,
that God is female. “Just pray to God, She will provide,” the ladies are
saying. It is to be hoped that they do not mean. She will indiscriminately
provide male targets for their automobiles, as She allegedly did for Miss
Adams.

It may seem extreme to extend the Women’s
Liberation Movement into the area of homicide, but the record is crowded with
relevant examples. A recent one leaps to mind, that of Andy Warhol, artist of
the silver hair, blue contact lenses, leather jackets, Campbell Soup can
paintings and nudie films.

•
She produced a gun

And
began putting the trigger

The scene was Warhol’s The Factory, site of
his sixth-floor underground-movies studio. The liberated lady in question was
one Valerie Solanas. Miss Solanas had starred in a Warhol flick, “I, a Man.”
(Could the title have belatedly stirred her indignation?) Present with Miss
Solanas and the film-maker were Fred Hughes, his friend, and Mario Amaya,
London art critic and gallery director. Warhol was speaking to someone on the
telephone. Miss Solanas produced a gun and began pulling the trigger in the
artist’s direction. Amaya told reporters later, “She was going full blast.
Andy, shouted, ‘Oh, no!’ and he went down. Then she turned on me.”

Amaya ran for it. He managed to get to an
adjoining room and barricade the door, but not before suffering a wound in the gluteus.
The lady then turned on Fred Hughes.

“She came over to me and said, ‘I’m going to
shoot you.’” Mr. Hughes did what any sensible man would have done under the
circumstances.

“I got down on my knees and said, Please,
please, don’t shoot me.’“ It is tempting to believe that the gentleman’s ritual
attitude of submission mollified Miss Solanas. In any event, she departed
without carrying out her threat Warhol underwent surgery for wounds in the
spleen, liver, stomach, esophagus, and both lungs, and survived. Meanwhile,
Valerie Solanas had surrendered to a traffic officer in Times Square. Handing
over the .32 automatic she had fired, together with a .22 revolver, she uttered
the words, “I am a flower child. He had too much control over my life.” She did
not explain, apparently, what she had against Mr. Amaya and Mr. Hughes, beyond
the fact that they were men.

•
She had organized a society

For
cutting up men

Valerie told reporters that she had written
Ma manifesto that explains a lot of things.” The document disclosed that, in
addition to being an actress (and a would-be playwright), she was organizer of
a group which called itself the Society for Cutting Up Men, or SCUM. SCUM’s
program was to “eliminate through sabotage all aspects of society not relevant
to women (everything), bring about a complete female takeover, eliminate the
male sex and begin to create a swinging, groovy, out-of-sight female world.”

Precisely how many lady liberators go so far
as to advocate the total annihilation of males is not statistically available,
but that the SCUM group is not unique in this goal is admitted to by the underground
press.

A group named The Vibrator Freaks is
described in the Los Angeles Free Press: “… the extremist fringe of Women’s Lib
has concocted a superficially logical ideology which enshrines the electric
vibrator as the ultimate sex-trip for the sisterhood, the marvelous invention
that … .” On second thought, for details see the Free Press.

That Valerie Solanas had support in her
attempt to eliminate Andy Warhol is testified to by leaflets handed out in the
streets by a feminist group after the shoot-up in the Warhol atelier:

“ANDY WARHOL SHOT BY VALERIE SOLANAS. PLASTIC
MAN VS. THE SWEET ASSASSIN . . . NON-MAN SHOT BY THE REALITY OF HIS DREAM . . .
A TOUGH CHICK WITH A BOP CAP AND A .88 ... VALERIE IS OURS!” the leaflets
proclaimed with more enthusiasm than accuracy about gun calibers.

Just how extensive are the symptoms of this
homicidal hate the- men syndrome? How real a threat is faced by the largest of
the world’s minorities, the male of the species? We are told by one feminist
slogan, “Hell hath no fury!”; in another, The hand that rocks the cradle can
also cradle a rock!” Many leaders of NOW, WITCH, and other acronymic groups
call themselves gut feminists and speak of the “victim’s rage” they an experiencing.
It may be the significant phrase in any understanding of the potential for
violence in the movement. Rage, the rage of victimization released, seems to
run through the speeches and writings of liberation leaden.

•
Some of her rage was drained off

By
her Women’s Liberation work

It shows up even among female journalists.
Helen Dudar, who was exposed to the rhetoric of the Movement while on assignment
for Newsweek, confessed to blistering a fellow-newsman with “a string of
fearful obscenities” over a remark she took to be unflattering to her sex. From
the time she began to associate with the militant feminists she found herself
asking, “How do you control the hostility?” Her surfacing hatred toward male
dominance was interfering with her work.

She was not alone. A nursery school teacher
(!) told Miss Dudar, “I’ve been absolutely overwhelmed by feelings of hostility
that scare the hell out of me.” This woman went on to explain that some of the “victim’s
rage” she felt was being drained off by her Women’s Lib work and steering dear
of men.

In an article in Esquire Sally Kempton wrote
that she had joined the Movement for ambivalent reasons. “I became a feminist
as an alternative to becoming a masochist Actually I was a masochist; I became
a feminist because to be a masochist is intolerable.”

She tells of her violent rages against her
husband. “I used to lie in bed beside my husband after those fights and wish I
had the courage to bash in his head with a frying pan . . . I would mutter to
myself through clenched teeth, pushing back the realization that I didn’t dare,
not because I was afraid of seriously hurting him— I would have loved to do
that—but because... I was afraid that he would leave me.”

•
“He didn’t deserve

What
I did to him”

But other ladies do not stop short of their
fantasies. “I just grabbed the knife off the floor and shoved it into his
chest,” a blonde wife and mother of four told Los Angeles police. She related
how her husband had mistreated her, but she shed sincere tears over killing
him. “I want him back . . . I wish I hadn’t done it.

He wanted me to come to him after I cut him,
but I didn’t... He can’t be dead . . . He didn’t deserve what I did to him . .
. We had lots of arguments but I loved him.”

The love-hate ambivalenz, as Freud
called it Victim’s rage, as a feminist might retort; gut reactionto a
real situation. She might even quote Frantz Fanon: “An oppressed individual cannot
feel liberated until he kills one of the oppressors.’ Peter Fabiano was shot to
death at his front door one Halloween Eve by a masked caller. Arrested for the
murder were Goldyne Pizer and Joan Rabel.

•
In almost any woman

“An
almost incredible fury”

“We decided to kill Fabiano because Joan told
me Fabiano had been mistreating his wife,” Miss Fixer told police. “I didn’t
know Fabiano until Joan pointed him out to me that night.” Women’s Lib
activists have said. “In almost any woman you can unearth an incredible fury.”

This anti-male virulence shows up again and
again in history. Julie d’Aubigny [AKA, Mademoiselle
Maupin or La Maupin], a 17th
century French girl, killed 18 men before she was 21. She was a female d’Artagnan.
She deliberately provoked men into facing her lethal dueling sword on the field
of honor for the pleasure of running them through the heart

The example of Mile. d’Aubigny may be called
into question because, as a lesbian, she had a built-in bias. But then there is
the case of Princess Margaret of Burgundy, whose murders of men,including her own father, are said to
have totaled a thousand. Theprincess
dispatched her ladies to lure young men to her castle,called the Tower of Nails, where she had them disposed of.
Margaretdid not wage this
awesome campaign of extermination out of aneed for violent protest against the male-dominated world of theMiddle Ages. The men had been her
lovers, and dead lovers don’tgo
about smearing a girl’s reputation. Or so the story goes.

Nearer
our own time is the case of Bianca Segura, the fiery intellectual anarchist
known in Dictator Primo de Rivera’s Spain as La Hacha, which means the torch
and also the hatchet. La Hacha, in a fierce quest of the perfect human society,
chose a genetically superior mate for a night of procreation and out of her own
body produced the perfect woman, her daughter Ginebra, who came to be known as
the Red Virgin of Madrid. The Red Virgin, whom her mother intended eventually
to mate with a male counterpart in order to found a line of super-beings,
leaped to the forefront of the revolutionary movement that toppled de Rivera
from power and even threatened the Spanish throne. And then the girl fell in
love with a middle-aged army officer of “rotten”—that is noble—blood, lost all interest
in politics, and gave herself to hint La Hacha took her perfidious daughter on
a picnic in the country, plied her with wine until the girl fell asleep under a
tree and, with the ax she had used to cut the picnic firewood, chopped her Red «*-virgin daughter into little pieces
and fed them to the fire.

•
That’s rage.

There
is no denying the almost convulsive response among many women to the rallying
cries of today’s ultra-feminists. Will it all wind up in pogroms and
Buchenwalds? Or perhaps the male minority will be saved from extinction by the
world’s more numerous Auntie Toms, who find no cause for homicide except for an
occasional individual case — in the existing order. By the way, for the
record, some of
mybest friends are females.

Thursday, September 5, 2013

FULL TEXT: Mineola, N. Y. – A New York City employee won
$10,000 in state Supreme Court after he gave a convincing demonstration of his
argument that he had been falsely sued for rape.

Jeffrey Gordon, a 30-year-old accountant with the New York
City comptroller’s office, was arrested last year and charged with first-degree
rape. When a grand jury refused to indict him, Gordon sued the woman who
brought the charge against him, 29-year-old Andrea Cohen, for $2.5 million for
alleged libel and slander.

Miss Cohen testified Wednesday during the one-day non-jury
trial that when she was raped, she had pulled at Gordon’s hair.

At that point in the testimony, Gordon stood up [and]
removed his toupee.

FULL TEXT (Article 1 of 3): Omaha, Neb. – A woman who
falsely accused a man of raping her was ordered to run radio and newspaper
advertisements apologizing to him. But the man says the sentence will not undo
the damage.

“You can’t change a wrong to a right,” said Gary Nitsch. “I
lost a job. I had to get a lawyer. The kids at school were saying to my kids,
“Your dad’s a rapist.”

And the ads may never be printed or aired.

Elizabeth Irene Richardson, 24, is considering appealing the
sentence, which the Nebraska Civil Liberties Union says may be cruel and
unusual punishment.

Richardson accusing Nitsch, 44, of Overton, of raping her in
September 1988. she reportedly told police that he raped her when he came to
her housed in search of a painting job.

Nitsch was arrested and charged with sexual assault, but the
case was dropped in February this year for lack of strong physical evidence.

Word reached authorities that Richardson has told friends
the rape was a hoax. Her attorney, Todd McKeone, said Richardson admitted she
made up the accusations to get attention from her husband, a trucker who is
often away from home.

Richardson pleaded guilty to perjury in April and was sentenced
June 8, according to press reports.

A judge ordered Richardson to apologize to Nitsch in
half-page advertisements in every newspaper and on commercials on each radio
station in Dawson County, a country of about 22,000 in central Nebraska.

The media campaign was expected to cost about $1,000, her
attorneys said. She also was sentenced to 180 days in jail and was placed on
two years’ probation.

A panel of state civil liberties union attorneys who
reviewed the case said the sentence may violate Richardson’s rights under the
Eighth and 14th amendments.

The Eighth Amendment protects individuals against cruel and
unusual punishment and the 14th Amendment ensures due process.

The organization is “concerned about the scarlet letter
approach in sentencing,” said Bill Schatz, NCLU executive director. “Suppose
someone is arrested for shoplifting. Are we going to make him wear a sign
saying he’s a convicted shoplifter? Is there such a thing as punishment fitting
crime?”

If the case is appealed, the organization will offer
research services and may file a friend-of-the court brief, Schatz said.

Nitsch said he was still puzzled about how his name came up
in the rape charge.

He said he met Richardson once during the spring or summer
of 1988 when he went to her house inquiring about the painting job she had
advertised.

“I would just like to have someone tell me how I was named,”
he said.

He said his ordeal has taken a toll on his family.

He said his wife, Naomi, “doesn’t like to come to town and
face people.” His 18-year-old daughter quit high school in March because of the
was she was being treated, Nitsch said.

“We’ve lived in a trailer house since 1973,” he said. “We’re
saving for a home, but when you have attorneys’ fees, it’s hard.”

Nitsch said he was fired from his job as a driver after
being questioned at work by authorities and jailed for three days. He’s now a
part-time construction worker.

He said he wants a full-time job but “people want clean
help. They don’t want somebody that’s been in trouble with the law.”

“I used to go into
town and drink coffee and joke with people, but everything just kind of turned
sour,” Nitsch said.

“The first year, I was so depressed I didn’t want people to
see me,” he said. “If I went into town I had to have somebody drive me so I
could scoot down in the seat so nobody would see me.”

Nitsch said he is also bitter about the way authorities
handled his case. His attorneys are suing four sheriff’s deputies for $100,000,
claiming he was arrested and his home was searched without cause.

“Mr. Nitsch is apparently the victim of some lies. But that
is not the fault of the sheriff’s department,” said Randy Goyette, an attorney
representing the Dawson County Sherfiff’s Office.

Jim O’Rourke, now a district court judge, was Dawson County
attorney at the time.

“I believe that the case was very professionally and
accurately handled,” O’Rourke said. “We went with what we had and we did the
best we could.”

O’Rourke said Richardson decided not to pursue the case
after he told her the trial would be difficult for her without corroborating
evidence.

FULL TEXT (Article 2 of 3): Lexington, Neb. – A woman
sentenced to apologize in radio and newspaper ads to a man she falsely accused
of raping her won’t appeal the sentence to the state Supreme Court, her
attorney said Friday.

An attorney for Elizabeth Irene Richardson said he mailed a
dismissal of the appeal to the
Nebraska Supreme Court on Thursday.

Ms. Richardson, 24, did not want to risk having a judge gave
her a longer jail sentence if the Supreme Court decided she could not be
ordered to pay for the advertisements as a condition of probation, said defense
attorney Tod McKeone.

“There’s still some possibility of not having to run them
(the ads),” he said.

He said the defense was considering alternatives to
appealing the sentence to a higher court, including possibly filing a motion
asking the district court for a sentence reduction.

“It would have been an interesting case to test this kind of
sentencing to see if it would send up under constitutional grounds,” McKeone
said.

Ms. Richardson, a former Lexington resident, was sentenced
June 8 to 180 days in jail and was placed on two years probation for perjury.

A Dawson County District Court judge also ordered Ms.
Richardson to apologise to Gary Nitsch in a half-page advertisement in every
newspaper and a primetime spot in each radio station in Dawson, a central
Nebraska county of about 22,000 people.

Ms. Richardson now lives in Overton, had accused Nitsch, 44,
of Overton of raping her in September 1988. he was arrested and charged with
sexual assault. Ms. Richardson told friends the rape was a hoax. She was
convicted of her perjury last February. County attorney John Marsh said the
woman’s was trying to get the attention of her husband, a truck driver who was
often away from home.

Authorities later learned that Ms. Richardson told friends
the rape was a hoax. She was convicted of perjury last February. County
attorney John Marsh said the woman’s was trying to get the attention of her
husband, a truck driver who was often away from home.

Nitsch, who said he had met the woman only briefly when he went
to her house inquiring about a painting job she had advertised, has said that
as a result of the false charge, he lost his job and his family was harassed.

FULL
TEXT (Article 3 of 3): Lexington, Neb. - A woman who falsely accused a man of
rape apologized Sunday in court-ordered radio ads, saying she hopes time will
heal the damage to. the man's reputation. Elizabeth Irene Richardson, 24, was ordered
to run radio and newspaper ads throughout Dawson

County
in central Nebraska as part of her sentence for a perjury conviction last
February. She was later to begin a six-month jail term for falsely accusing
Gary Nitsch, 44.

"I
want the public to know that these allegations were not true and that I made up
the story for personal reasons," Ms. Richardson said in the radio ad.
"While I realize there is nothing I can really do or say to repair the
damage I have caused, I sincerely pray that time will heal the wounds my false
allegation have inflicted on Mr. Nitsch and his family," she said. Ms.
Richardson accused Nitsch of raping her in September 1988. He was charged with
sexual assault, but the case was dropped for lack of physical evidence.

All the true crime cases featured on the popular television show Deadly Women are drawn from English-speaking
countries. The following list represents those cases of Female Serial Killers
(3 or more victims) and Black Widow Serial Killers (2 or more victims)
collected by UHoM.

Why, you might ask, are these Female Serial Killers featured – regardless of the sex of
their victims – so prominently on a website devoted to the history of
misandry? The reason is that despite the broad awareness that criminologists
and true crime buffs have of sadistic female criminals (at least those of
recent times in English-speaking countries) it is still common for feminists
and Marxists to attempt to downplay and censor accurate information on female
criminality in order to promote their utopian anti-family, anti-“patriarchy”
vision and to make it easier to indoctrinate young persons into their cult-like
authoritarian thinking. Generally women – both utopian feminists as well as
normal women – are more aware of female evil than men are and men are easily
cowed into adopting as chivalrous attitude.

Thus The Unkown History of MISANDRYmakes an effort to make available information that is
overlooked and, in many cases, totally unknown and would continue to be ignored
were we not to post it here. It should be noted that many of the more
well-known cases of recent decades have not yet been posted on this site due to
having prioritized the lesser known information.

Elizabeth Branch is thought to have poisoned seven victims,
two of whom survived. She served victims pudding laced with arsenic.

***

EXCERPT (Article 1 of 3): Elizabeth, aged 67, and her
daughter Mary, 24, were both charged with the cruel murder of their maid, Jane
Butterworth. A transcript of their trial, which took place at Taunton,
Somerset, in March 1740, reported that:

It was obvious, judging by the suspicions of their
neighbours, that both the accused had also committed other murders in the past. Mrs Branch’s husband
died under circumstances that led others who lived nearby to believe she had
poisoned him and they were convinced that she had hanged her mother, after
murdering her, to avoid an investigation into the cause of the death. Human
bones were also discovered in a well near her [Elizabeth’s] farm, which were
believed to be those of one of her servant girls who disappeared and was never
heard from again.

With such a reputation Mrs Branch found it difficult to get
female staff in the locality and when she was in need of one she went further
afield and brought Jane Butterfield from Bristol. The young girl was hardly in
the house before the two women subjected her to a brutal regime, and eventually
beat her so Elizabeth Branch and her Daughter Beating their Victim savagely
that she died. The older woman had Jane’s corpse buried secretly in the
graveyard and might have escaped blame, in spite of the complaint of her other
maid, who had witnessed the murder and had been forced to lie next to her in
bed, if a strange light had not been seen over the girl’s grave, by several
persons. This unearthly manifestation confirmed the neighbours’ suspicions, and
when the body was secretly removed at night, it was found by Mr Salmon, a
surgeon, to be covered with wounds and other marks of violence.

When the case was first called, it was discovered that Mrs
Branch had bribed some of the jurors, and there was some delay before they
could be replaced. The trial lasted over six hours, and after a short
consultation the jury brought in a verdict of guilty. It was noticed that Mrs
Branch’s expression remained unchanged at their findings, but several times
kicked Mary Vigor, one of the prosecution witnesses, as she stood by her at the
bar while she was giving evidence. When sentence was passed the next day, the
condemned elder woman complained bitterly to the court about the illegality of
changing the jury, exclaiming that if she and her daughter had been tried by
the first jury, they would not have been convicted.

(First published as Lipstick
on the Noose’ in 2003), p. 33 ff. of 2006 edition]

***

EXCERPT (Article 2 of 3): Former servants and neighbours all
gave evidence of the torture they inflicted on their servants, including a boy
who was forced to eat his own excrement. In this case the medical report stated
that Butterworth was whipped until the flesh on her fingers was stripped away
and tendons were exposed. [University of Cambridge]

***

FROM Wikipedia
(Article 3 of 3):Elizabeth Branch (1672–1740) –Elizabeth Parry was born either in Bristol or
Norton St Philip in Somerset. Her father was a well-off ship's surgeon, from
whom she received a £2,000 dowry upon her marriage to Benjamin Branch, a
gentleman farmer. Elizabeth quickly gained a reputation for violence. She and
her daughter, Betty Branch, would torture small animals, apparently taking
inspiration from stories of Nero. They would often beat and humiliate their
servants, especially after the death of Benjamin in 1730, so that soon no local
persons were willing to serve them.

On 13 February 1740, as witnessed by Anne James, the
dairymaid, Elizabeth sent her 13-year-old serving maid Jane Buttersworth on an
errand to a nearby farm. On her return, Elizabeth and Betty, irate at how long
she had taken, beat her for almost seven hours until she died. They buried her
secretly, but enough suspicion was aroused that her body was exhumed and
examined, whereupon the wounds were found. Elizabeth and Betty were tried for
murder on March 31 at the Somerset assizes. The jury returned a guilty verdict
without retiring to deliberate, and the two women were hanged at Ilchester on
May 3.

Sunday, September 1, 2013

Ranavalona I
(c. 1778 – August 16, 1861), also known as Ranavalo-Manjaka I, was a sovereign of the Kingdom of Madagascar
from 1828 to 1861.

EXCERPT: As far as Ranavalona was concerned, the only good
foreigner was a dead one. She broke treaties with both the English and the
French and banned Christianity. With a fanaticism that would have made Mary
Tudor proud, she came up with creative and inventive ways to eliminate any one
caught practicing Christianity. They were tortured, flung from cliffs, boiled
in water, poisoned, flung off cliffs or beheaded if they didn’t recant. She
also got rid of trial by jury and brought back good old fashioned ‘Trial by
Ordeal’ which was decided by forcing the accused to drink the poisonous juice
of the tanguena plant. If they survived, they were innocent.

Both the French
and the British spent considerable time and effort trying to dislodge
Ranavalona from the throne but to no avail. After one successful battle against
an invasion, Ranavalona cut off the heads of the dead Europeans, stuck them on
pikes, and lined them up on the beach, to repel any future invaders. After that
little display, the French and the English decided that were better off
concentrating their efforts on other third world countries not ruled by insane
females.